Hi Woodman. Check this forum's Lens group for the topic SHOOTOUT to see my back-to-back comparisons. But yes, the 135/1.8 is far, far better than the 135/2 at the pixel level (in other words if you're only reducing by a factor of two, or less reduction). If you are reducing by a factor of 4, though, I don't think you can see a difference.
Irene Rudnyk did one between RF 85 1.2 and 135 1.8. Some of her shots were almost indistinguishable between the two lenses, but she preferred the shorter working distance of the 85.
I think she was the one saying something like "85mm is the longest I can use without having to raise my voice to the talent. And I am not going to raise my voice."
That's part of the rationale behind the 'classic' focal lengths for portraits (35mm environmental, 50mm full body, 85mm torso, 135mm headshot), they put you at about the same distance from the subject and that distance is suitable for comfortable conversation. Perspective is another part of the rationale, at least for shorter focal lengths. Longer distances with longer lenses can offer very good perspectives and great bokeh, but you're usually uncomfortably far from your subject.
I have found my EF 135mm f/2L to be very sharp, albeit the RF 50mm and 85mm f/1.2 really steal the show for me when it comes to sharpness. I'm sure the RF 135mm will be sharp as heck.
Yup. I could only take those out on cloudy days too. So sharp, just thier shadow was cutting off limbs and injuring models. I named them all Chuck Norris.So sharp it'll cut the sensor into tiny little pieces.
